DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

The combination of gangs and drugs

has loomed for years as a particularly threatening aspect of the gang

problem. Until quite recently, however, we lacked the data necessary

for a clear understanding of the nature

and complexity of youth gangs and

their involvement with drug trafficking.

Using the results of the 1996 National

Youth Gang Survey of law enforcement agencies, this Bulletin analyzes

the participation of youth gang members in drug sales and the role of

gangs in drug distribution. Although

the authors found widespread drug

trafficking among youth gangs, they

report that serious involvement seems

concentrated in a small number of

areas and is overwhelmingly connected to young adult, rather than

juvenile, gang members. Thus,

jurisdictions should first assess the

particular problem they confront in

order to target their efforts to combat

both gang and drug violence more

effectively.

Youth Gang Drug Trafficking provides

a thoughtful analysis of extensive

youth drug trafficking data and identifies areas for further research. The

Bulletin also discusses the policy

implications of these findings for

communities struggling to curb the

negative impact of youth gangs in

their midst.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

December 1999

FPO

Youth Gang

Drug Trafficking

James C. Howell and Debra K. Gleason

The proliferation of youth gangs since

1980 has fueled the public’s fear and magnified possible misconceptions about youth

gangs. To address the mounting concern

about youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s

(OJJDP’s) Youth Gang Series delves into

many of the key issues related to youth

gangs. The series considers issues such

as gang migration, gang growth, female

involvement with gangs, homicide, drugs

and violence, and the needs of communities and youth who live in the presence of

youth gangs.

Nationally representative data on the

extent and nature of youth gang involvement in drug trafficking, as perceived by

law enforcement agencies, are available

for the first time. Based on results from

the 1996 Youth Gang Survey, this Bulletin

provides baseline data and analysis on

the epidemiology of youth gang drug

trafficking, including age, sex, and race/

ethnicity of involved gang members; the

relative extent of the problem in urban,

suburban, and rural areas; and the involvement of youth gangs in other crimes.

This Bulletin specifically examines several issues related to youth gang drug trafficking (see Howell and Decker, 1999; Klein,

1995; Klein, Maxson, and Cunningham,

1991; Moore, 1990). Some researchers

contend that many youth gangs were

transformed into drug trafficking operations during the crack cocaine epidemic

in the latter part of the 1980’s. Others

contend that the extent of youth gang

involvement in drug trafficking is unclear

(for a review of this literature, see Howell

and Decker, 1999). The present analysis

will address the involvement of youth

gangs and gang members in drug trafficking. However, the connection between

youth gang drug trafficking and other

crimes remains unclear. According to popular perception, youth gangs are directly

involved with drug sales, and drug sales

inevitably lead to other crimes. While

several gang studies have found a weak

causal relationship between youth gang

involvement in drug sales and violent

crime, other studies have shown the

transformation of youth gang wars into

drug wars. From existing studies, it has

been difficult to distinguish traditional

youth gangs from drug gangs. National

data relevant to these and other issues

are now available for the first time.

Responses to the 1996 National Youth

Gang Survey (Moore and Terrett, 1998;

National Youth Gang Center, 1999a), conducted by the National Youth Gang Center

(NYGC), were analyzed for this Bulletin.

The survey gathered data from law enforcement agencies on two measures of

youth gang drug trafficking: gang member
2

involvement in drug sales and gang control

of drug distribution. “Distribution” implies

organizational management and control,

as opposed to individual involvement in

selling drugs directly to individual buyers.

Unfortunately, the wording of the survey

question on gang control of drug distribution may not have elicited responses

that distinguished between street-level

control of drug sales to individual buyers

and organizational control of drug distribution by gangs. The 1997 National Youth

Gang Survey asked respondents to report

on the distribution of drugs for the purpose of generating profits for the gang.

Analysis of these data is under way. Nevertheless, the 1996 survey provides information on the age, gender, and race/

ethnicity of youth gang members and on

the demographic characteristics of responding jurisdictions. The survey data

also permit an examination of the interrelationship of youth gangs, drug trafficking, and other crime involvement.

Law enforcement agencies continue to

be the best and most widely used source

of national information available on gangs.

However, this source has some important

limitations (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996;

Maxson, 1992; Maxson, 1998). First, many

agencies do not collect gang data in a

standardized manner. Automated gang

databases are becoming more common,

but they are typically used for gathering

criminal intelligence rather than recording gang crime. Local law enforcement

databases are designed to track and support apprehension of individual gang

members—not to compile gang crime

statistics. Second, law enforcement

agencies are sometimes affected and

constrained by political considerations

(e.g., when they are pressured politically

to pursue certain types of crimes), and

a gang problem may tend to be either denied or exaggerated (Huff, 1989). Third,

agencies and individuals within agencies

often have different definitions of what

constitutes a gang or a gang incident,

and perceptions of the problem vary

with the expertise and experience of the

observer. Varying definitions of youth

gangs continue to complicate analysis

of comparative gang data. Fourth, police

normally investigate crimes, not gangs.

Compiling national gang data through

surveys of law enforcement agencies

involves asking the agencies “to provide

. . . a service they may not routinely

provide for local assessment and policy

making” (Curry, Ball, and Decker, 1996,

p. 33).

Survey Methods

The Sample

The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey

was sent to a sample of 3,024 police and

sheriff’s departments in October 1997.

It consisted of a 14-item questionnaire that

elicited information on gang-related drug

activity and other aspects of youth gangs

(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a). This

sample included four subsamples:

◆ All police departments serving cities

with populations greater than 25,000.

◆ A randomly selected sample of police

departments serving cities with populations between 2,500 and 25,000.

◆ All “suburban county” police and

sheriff’s departments.

◆ A randomly selected sample of “rural

county” police and sheriff’s departments.1

Nonrespondents (n=1,512) received

followup calls beginning 2 months after the

survey was mailed. After the followup calls,

the response rate increased from 50 percent

to 87 percent of the 3,024 jurisdictions that

received the survey. Response rates for the

above subsamples varied, but not significantly. Large cities and suburban counties

had the highest response rate (88 percent),

followed by small cities and rural counties

(86 percent). In a few cases, respondents

elected not to respond to one or more survey questions. In such cases, the agency

was excluded from the analysis for the affected question(s). A total of 1,385 respondents (53 percent of the respondents who

returned survey forms) reported gang problems. Among these, 1,005 agencies responded to the question regarding gang

member involvement in drug sales, and

1,139 responded to the question regarding

gang control of drug distribution. These

responses were analyzed for this Bulletin.

Measures

The 1996 National Youth Gang Survey

placed limited restrictions on local jurisdictions’ definitions of a “youth gang.”

For the purposes of the survey, a “youth

gang” was defined as “a group of youths

or young adults in your jurisdiction that

you or other responsible persons in your

agency or community are willing to identify

or classify as a ‘gang.’”2

 Respondents

were asked to exclude motorcycle gangs,

hate or ideology groups, prison gangs,

and other exclusively adult gangs.

Respondents were asked two questions

regarding gang involvement with drugs.

The first open-ended question3

 asked, “In

your jurisdiction, what percent of drug

sales do you estimate involve gang members?” The second question was “What

proportion of drug distribution do you

estimate gangs control or manage in your

jurisdiction?” Respondents were asked to

choose the answer “that fits best” among

the following options: “all of it,” “more

than half,” “less than half,” “less than onefourth,” “none,” or “do not know.”

Information on the age of gang members

was obtained by a single question: “Considering all the members of the gangs you

are reporting on, what is your estimate

of the percentage who are: under age 15,

15–17, 18–24, over 24, do not know?” Only

responses that totaled 100 percent were

used in this and the gender and race/

ethnicity questions described below.

Information on the sex of gang members was obtained by a single question:

“What is the percentage of all of the members of the gangs you are reporting on

who are: male, female, do not know?”

Information on the racial/ethnic identity of gang members was obtained by a

single question: “For your jurisdiction,

what percentage of all gang members do

you estimate are: African American/black,

Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Caucasian/white,

or other (please identify)?”

Responses to these questions regarding

age, sex, and race/ethnicity of gang members were used in the analyses for this

Bulletin. Moore and Terrett (1998) and the

National Youth Gang Center (1999a) have

used responses to one question in the survey (asking for the number of gang members

in respondents’ respective jurisdictions) as

a base for calculating the absolute percentage of gang members falling into age, gender,

and race/ethnicity categories.4

Information on gang member involvement in criminal activity (other than

1 See National Youth Gang Center (1999a) for detailed

information on sample selection, survey methodology,

and results of analyses to date (see also Moore and

Terrett, 1998, for a summary of results).

2 In the remainder of this Bulletin, unless otherwise

noted, the term “gang” refers to youth gangs.

3 Unless response categories are noted, questions

that follow were open ended.

4 Thus, weighted counts could be used in the analyses

for this Bulletin pertaining to age, gender, and race/

ethnicity. This procedure was not deemed appropriate

for this Bulletin because this analysis focuses on significant differences in gang characteristics in different jurisdictions given various levels of involvement in drug

activity, rather than on generating prevalence data.

Moreover, use of weighted estimates would be misleading for analysis of covariation between variables.
3

drug sales and control of drug distribution) was obtained using the following

question: “Please indicate the degree to

which gang members are estimated to

have engaged in the following offenses

in your jurisdiction in 1996.” The listed

offenses were aggravated assault, robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking

and entering, and motor vehicle theft.

Survey recipients were provided four

response categories: high, medium, low,

and not involved. No attempt was made

to elicit the number of offenses for which

gang members were arrested in 1996 because such data generally are not available (see Curry, 1996).

Two questions were used to determine

the year of onset of gang problems in particular jurisdictions. First, respondents

were asked, “Have you had gang problems

in your jurisdiction prior to 1996?” Those

respondents who answered “yes” to this

question were asked, “In approximately

what year did gangs begin to pose a

problem in your jurisdiction?”

Findings

This section summarizes analyses that

were conducted for this Bulletin. Readers

are reminded that “drug trafficking” refers

to gang member involvement in drug sales

and gang control of drug distribution. A

report, Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Crime: Results From the 1996 National Youth Gang

Survey, which includes all tables and statistical tests (Howell and Gleason, 1998), is

available from the National Youth Gang

Center (for contact information, see “For

Further Information” on page 10). Readers

are referred to the full report for statistical

significance tests. In this Bulletin, the term

“significant” is used to describe relationships between variables at or above the

0.05 level of statistical significance. Virtually every correlation and proportional

difference examined in the reported analyses is statistically significant at or above

the 0.001 level. Observations involving

small numbers of respondents are so

noted by footnotes.

Drug Sales

On average, respondents estimated

that 43 percent of the drug sales in their

jurisdiction involved gang members.

Rather than using the average response,

it was determined that more meaningful

observations could be made by aggregating responses into groups and referring to the percentage of all responses

within each group for analyses in this

Bulletin. Gang member involvement

in drug sales was divided into three

response ranges: low (0–33 percent),

medium (34–66 percent), and high

(67–100 percent).5

 This classification of

responses revealed that 47 percent of all

drug sales involved gang members at a

low level, 26 percent at a medium level,

and 27 percent at a high level. While

the average for the entire response range

(0–100 percent) was 43 percent, this

division shows that the preponderance

of responses fell into the low range (33

percent or less).6

In another part of the survey, respondents were asked if they included “drug

gangs” in their responses to a question regarding whether they had active gangs (National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).7

 More

than half (57 percent) of the respondents

who said they had active gangs included

drug gangs in the scope of their youth gang

definition.8

 Because youth gangs are difficult to define, consensus is difficult to

reach. Whether or not respondents included drug gangs in their youth gang definition greatly affected the distribution of

responses on gang member involvement in

drug sales.9

 Respondents who included

drug gangs in their youth gang definition

reported a much larger proportion of drug

sales involving gang members than did

respondents who did not include drug

gangs in their definition. In jurisdictions

that did not include drug gangs in their

definition, two-thirds of the respondents

said that as much as 33 percent of their

drug sales involved gang members. In

contrast, in jurisdictions that included drug

gangs, two-thirds of the respondents said

that as much as 70 percent of their drug

sales involved gang members.

Drug Distribution

Respondents indicated that gangs did

not control or manage most of the drug

distribution in their jurisdictions. More

than two-thirds of the respondents reported gang control of drug distribution

at none to less than half; nearly half (47

percent) of the respondents said that

gangs “control or manage” less than

one-fourth of all drug distribution in

their localities.10 In contrast, less than

one-third of respondents said gangs

controlled more than half of the drug

distribution in their jurisdictions.

Again, the inclusion of drug gangs in

respondents’ definitions of youth gangs

greatly affected the distribution of responses on gang control of drug distribution. Only 12 percent of the respondents

in jurisdictions that did not include drug

gangs said gangs controlled or managed

more than half of the drug distribution.

In contrast, in jurisdictions that included

drug gangs, 41 percent of the respondents

said gangs controlled or managed more

than half (or all) of the drug distribution.

Thus, the effect of including drug gangs

in respondents’ youth gang definition

skewed responses toward a higher level

of gang control of drug distribution.

Demographic Factors

Gender. Females represented a

smaller proportion of gang members in

jurisdictions that reported gang member

involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution. Although they

were only slightly less prevalent in jurisdictions that reported high levels of gang

member involvement in drug sales, they

were significantly less likely to be members of gangs that controlled drug distribution. In the 12 jurisdictions11 that reported gang control of all of the drug

distribution and also reported the gender of gang members, females represented only 6 percent of gang members,

5

 Respondents who said “do not know” or whose estimates totaled more than or less than 100 percent were

excluded from all analyses.

6

 In an analysis not included in this Bulletin, the spectrum of responses (0–100 percent) was divided into

those that were above and those that were below the

midpoint (that is, 50 percent of all drug sales). As a

result, 54 percent of all responses fell below the midpoint, 34 percent fell above it, and the remaining 12

percent of responses were exactly 50 percent. An examination of the polar (lowest and highest) quadrants

showed that in the lowest quadrant, 40 percent of the

respondents estimated that gang members were involved in one-fourth or less of all drug sales. In the

highest quadrant, 23 percent of all respondents estimated that gang members were involved in threefourths or more of all drug sales. Thus, nearly

two-thirds (63 percent) of all respondents fell into

the extreme quadrants.

7 See page 8 of this Bulletin for characteristics that

distinguish bona fide gangs from drug gangs according

to Klein (1995, p. 132).

8 Jurisdictions that included drug gangs in their responses were included in all analyses for this Bulletin.

9 The authors are grateful to David Curry, University of

Missouri-St. Louis, for suggesting this line of analysis.

10 This estimate might have been lower if respondents

had been asked to make a distinction between streetlevel and organizational control of drug distribution.

11 Readers are cautioned that this observation involves

a small number of respondents.
4

compared with a national average of

11 percent (National Youth Gang Center,

1999a).12 Conversely, in jurisdictions that

reported no gang control of drug distribution, females represented almost 15

percent of gang members.

Age. Regardless of the extent of gang

member involvement in drug sales, respondents estimated that the largest

proportion of their gang members were

juveniles (ages 15 to 17) (see table 1).13

However, the prevalence of gang members age 18 and older increased in jurisdictions in which the level of gang member involvement in drug sales was

“moderate” or “high.” There tended to

be fewer gang members ages 15 to 17 in

these jurisdictions.

A more distinct age-related pattern

was observed with respect to gangcontrolled drug distribution (see table 2).

Respondents who said gangs controlled

none of the drug distribution estimated

that 79 percent of their gang members

were juveniles (age 17 or younger). In

contrast, in the 12 jurisdictions that reported gang control of all drug distribution and also reported the age of gang

members,14 respondents estimated that

42 percent of their gang members were

juveniles and that 58 percent were young

adults (age 18 and older). Thus, on average, the prevalence of young adult gang

members increased significantly as gang

control of drug distribution increased.

The average age of gang members also

was affected by population characteristics

in jurisdictions that responded to the two

questions about drug trafficking. In the largest jurisdictions (those with populations of

250,000 or more), gangs consisted of approximately equal proportions of juveniles

and young adults. Two age-related trends

were observed in smaller jurisdictions. The

percentage of juvenile gang members increased significantly, while the percentage

of young adult gang members decreased

significantly as population size decreased.

In sum, age varied more significantly

with gang control of drug distribution

than with gang member involvement in

drug sales. Older gang members appear

to be much more involved in drug distribution than with drug sales. A significant

age shift was also observed with respect

to population size. Gang members age

18 and older were significantly more involved in both the sale and distribution

of drugs in larger jurisdictions.

Race/Ethnicity. Table 3 shows that Caucasian and Hispanic gang members were

significantly more prevalent in jurisdictions with low levels of gang member involvement in drug sales (0–33 percent)

and that African American gang members

were significantly more prevalent in jurisdictions with high levels of gang member

involvement in drug sales (67–100 percent).15 At the low level of drug sales, 23

percent of gang members were African

Table 2: Level of Gang Control of Drug Distribution, by Age of Gang

Members (Unweighted*)

Age

 Level of Control Under 15 15–17 18–24 Over 24

All (n=12†) 10% 32% 47% 11%

More than half (n=279) 19 42 31 8

Less than half (n=220) 23 43 29 5

Less than one-fourth

(n=401) 21 49 26 4

None (n=58) 31 48 19 1

Overall average‡ (n=970) 21 46 28 5

Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to

rounding; n=the number of observations.

* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in

each jurisdiction.

† Caution should be exercised in interpreting these data because fewer than 20 observations were

available for estimation. Twelve jurisdictions that said gangs control all of the drug distribution also

provided information on the age of gang members.

‡ These averages were derived from the estimates of respondents who responded to the questions

regarding drug distribution.

14 Readers are cautioned that this observation involves

a small number of respondents.

15 The average percentage—not a percentage of the

total number of gang members—is used in this analysis. Hispanics represented 44 percent of the total number of gang members reported by all respondents;

African Americans, 35 percent; Caucasians, 14 percent;

Asians, 5 percent; and others, 2 percent (National

Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

Table 1: Level of Gang Member Involvement in Drug Sales, by Age of Gang

Members (Unweighted*)

Age

 Level of Involvement Under 15 15–17 18–24 Over 24

67–100% (n=232) 20% 43% 30% 7%

34–66% (n=217) 20 44 30 6

0–33% (n=407) 23 47 26 4

0–100% (n=856) 21 45 28 5

Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to

rounding; n=the number of observations.

* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in

each jurisdiction.

13 The average percentage, rather than a percentage

of the total number of gang members, is used in this

analysis. Of the total number of gang members reported by all respondents, 16 percent were estimated

to be under age 15, 34 percent ages 15 to 17 years old,

37 percent ages 18 to 24, and 13 percent over age 24

(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

12 Readers should recall that the average

percentage—not a percentage of the total number

of gang members—is used in this analysis. Females

represented 10 percent of the total number of gang

members reported by all respondents (National Youth

Gang Center, 1999a).
5

American, 34 percent were Hispanic, and

34 percent were Caucasian. In contrast, at

the high level of drug sales, 50 percent of

gang members were African American, 24

percent were Hispanic, and 22 percent

were Caucasian.

African American gang members were

most prevalent in jurisdictions reporting

high levels of gang control of drug distribution (see table 4). Their proportion

increased from 18 percent in jurisdictions reporting no gang control of drug

distribution to 59 percent in the 14 jurisdictions reporting gang control of all

drug distribution and also reporting the

race/ethnicity of gang members.16 Other

racial/ethnic groups were significantly

more prevalent in jurisdictions reporting

a low degree of gang control of drug distribution. For example, in jurisdictions

reporting gang control of less than onefourth of drug distribution, 36 percent of

gang members were Caucasian, and in

jurisdictions reporting gang control of all

drug distribution, only 18 percent were

Caucasian. The same pattern was evident for Hispanics and Asians.

In sum, the greater the prevalence of

African American gang members in the

jurisdiction, the larger the proportion of

drug sales accounted for by gang members and the greater the extent of gang

control of drug distribution. The opposite

pattern was observed for all other racial/

ethnic groups, except for “others,”17 whose

prevalence did not change significantly.

The Drug Trafficking

Context

Population Size. Gang involvement in

drug trafficking (member sales and gang

control of drug distribution) was spread

throughout various population categories,

but gangs were estimated to control slightly

more of the drug distribution in large cities

than in suburban areas, small cities, towns,

and rural counties. The prevalence of gang

member involvement in drug sales was approximately equal in suburban areas, small

cities, towns, rural counties, and the largest

cities, and none of the differences among

population categories were statistically significant for either type of drug trafficking.

Table 3: Level of Gang Member Involvement in Drug Sales,

by Race/Ethnicity of Gang Members (Unweighted*)

Race/Ethnicity

Level of African

Involvement American Hispanic Caucasian Asian Other

67–100% (n=250) 50% 24% 22% 3% 1%

34–66% (n=235) 38 26 28 6 2

0–33% (n=427) 23 34 34 7 2

0–100% (n=912) 34 29 29 6 2

Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to

rounding; n=the number of observations.

* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported

in each jurisdiction.

16 Readers are cautioned that this observation involves

a small number of respondents.

17 Nationally, only 2 percent of gang members were

identified as belonging to “other” racial/ethnic groups.

This category primarily consisted of American Indian

(45 percent), Polynesian (27 percent), Middle Eastern

(8 percent), and Haitian (5 percent) gang members

(National Youth Gang Center, 1999a).

Table 4: Level of Gang Control of Drug Distribution, by Race/Ethnicity of

Gang Members (Unweighted*)

Race/Ethnicity

Level of African

Control American Hispanic Caucasian Asian Other

All (n=14†) 59% 19% 18% 4% 1%

More than half

(n=287) 50 24 21 4 1

Less than half

(n=235) 35 29 28 5 3

Less than one-fourth

(n=423) 22 32 36 7 2

None (n=61) 18 30 43 8 0

Total/Average‡

(n=1,020) 33 29 30 6 2

Notes: The percentages within each level of involvement may not equal 100 percent due to

rounding; n=the number of observations.

* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in

each jurisdiction.

† Caution should be exercised in interpreting these data because fewer than 20 observations were

available for estimation. Fourteen jurisdictions that said gangs control all of the drug distribution also

provided information on the race/ethnicity of gang members.

‡ These averages were derived from the estimates of respondents who responded to the question

regarding drug distribution.

18Uniform Crime Reports regions, as defined by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Gang member involvement in drug

sales and gang control of drug distribution

were substantial in small cities, towns, and

rural counties with populations under

25,000. Nearly one-third of respondents in

these jurisdictions said gang members accounted for two-thirds or more of all drug

sales. Nearly one-fourth of respondents

in these areas said gangs controlled more

than one-half of the drug distribution.

Overall, population is not a factor in the

presence or absence of drug trafficking;

gang drug trafficking occurs in populations of all sizes.

Geographical Region. Both gang member involvement in drug sales and gang

control of drug distribution varied significantly across the four major geographic

regions.18 The average proportions of

drug sales estimated to involve gang

members were as follows: Northeast,
6

41 percent; Midwest, 47 percent; South,

45 percent; and West, 38 percent. Gang

control of drug distribution was significantly lower in the Northeast (10 percent)

than in the other three regions: Midwest, 29 percent; South, 35 percent;

and West, 25 percent.

The prevalence of particular racial/

ethnic groups also varied significantly

among the four geographic regions on both

drug trafficking measures. With respect to

drug sales, the greatest magnitude of variation was reported for Hispanics. While

they represented 58 percent of the gang

members in the West, they represented

only 17 percent of gang members in the

Midwest. Thus, Hispanics were greatly

overrepresented in the West. In contrast

with their national average within gangs

(34 percent), African Americans were

overrepresented in the Midwest (36 percent) and South (49 percent) regions

and greatly underrepresented in the West

(12 percent). Compared with their national average (29 percent), Caucasians

were somewhat overrepresented in the

Northeast (31 percent) and Midwest

(38 percent) and underrepresented in

the West (19 percent). Almost identical

patterns were observed for gang control

of drug distribution.

Year of gang problem onset. The onset year of gang problems in jurisdictions

significantly affected both drug sales and

control of drug distribution by gangs

(see table 5). In general, larger proportions of drug sales were attributed to

gang members in “older” gang localities

than in “newer” ones. However, gang

members were not as extensively involved in drug sales in the oldest gang

jurisdictions (in which gang problems

began before 1980) as in jurisdictions in

which onset occurred between 1981 and

1990. Jurisdictions reporting onset between 1981 and 1985 show the highest

level of gang member involvement in

drug sales. Jurisdictions in which gang

problems emerged after 1985 show lower

levels of gang member involvement in

drug sales, and these levels decrease in

each subsequent time period of onset

through 1995–96. Thus, gang members in

“newer” gang problem jurisdictions were

much less likely than those in “older”

gang problem jurisdictions to be involved in drug sales.

Onset year had an even stronger effect

on gang control of drug distribution (see

table 6).19 The peak gang problem onset

period for gang control of drug distribution was 1981 to 1985, after which gang

control of distribution declined in each

subsequent time period for gang problem

onset through 1995–96. The average percentages shown in table 6 indicate that

gangs control significantly less of the

drug distribution in “newer” gang problem jurisdictions than in “older” ones.

The Drug Sales-Distribution

Connection

The overlap between gang member

involvement in drug sales and gang control of drug distribution was significant,

as expected. In the 15 jurisdictions that

reported gang control of all drug distribution, every respondent reported that

gang members were responsible for 

two-thirds or more of all drug sales.

Conversely, when the reported percentage of drug sales involving gang members dropped to one-third or less,

80 percent of respondents said gangs

controlled less than one-fourth of the

drug distribution. In other words, if gang

members are involved in either drug

sales or drug distribution, then they (or

gangs in their jurisdiction) are likely to

be involved in both activities. Similarly,

in jurisdictions in which gang members

are not actively involved in drug sales,

gangs tend not to be actively involved

in control of drug distribution.

The Gang, Drugs, and

Crime Connection

Drug trafficking and criminal involvement. In another analysis (National

Youth Gang Center, 1999a, pp. 34–35),

gang members tended to be involved in

larceny/theft, followed by aggravated assault, motor vehicle theft, and burglary,

in that order. Gang members were not

reported to be extensively involved in

robbery; almost half of the respondents

reported “low” degrees of gang member

involvement in this offense.

Figure 1 shows the degree to which

gang members were reported to be involved in specific criminal offenses given

their level of involvement in drug sales.

The five measured offenses were aggravated assault, robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking and entering, and motor

vehicle theft. The bar graphs show the

degree to which gang members were reported to be involved in the five offenses

at four levels (high, medium, low, and not

involved) for each of three categories representing the proportion of drug sales

involving gang members (high, medium,

and low). For example, figure 1 shows

that in jurisdictions in which gang member involvement in drug sales was estimated to be “high,” 49 percent of gang

19 Table 6 was constructed using a formula that converted responses to the drug distribution question into

interval responses from 0 to 100 percent (1, all, 100

percent; 2, more than half, 75 percent; 3, less than half,

37.5 percent; 4, less than one-fourth, 12.5 percent; and

5, none, 0).

Table 5: Period of Gang Problem

Onset, by Average

Percentage of Drug Sales

Involving Gang Members

(Unweighted*)

Average Percentage

Period of Onset of Drug Sales

Before 1980 (n=69) 45%

1981–85 (n=60) 48

1986–90 (n=278) 47

1991–92 (n=162) 43

1993–94 (n=220) 41

1995–96 (n=52) 35

Average Percentage

(n=841) 44

Note: n=the number of observations.

* The averages reported in this table do not

account for the number of gang members

reported in each jurisdiction.

Table 6: Period of Gang Problem

Onset, by Average Percentage of Drug Distribution

Controlled/Managed by

Gangs (Unweighted*)

 Degree of Drug

Period of Onset Distribution

Before 1980 (n=76) 44%

1981–85 (n=63) 47

1986–90 (n=314) 42

1991–92 (n=185) 34

1993–94 (n=235) 32

1995–96 (n=73) 24

Average Percentage

(n=946) 37

Note: n=the number of observations.

* The averages reported in this table do not

account for the number of gang members

reported in each jurisdiction.
7

Figure 1: Level of Gang Member Involvement in Drug Sales, by Level of Gang Member Involvement in Related

Offenses (Unweighted*)

High Medium Low Not Involved

Notes: These bar graphs show the percentages of gang members involved in criminal offenses at high, medium, and low levels when involvement in drug sales is at high, medium, and low levels. n=the number of observations. “High”=67–100 percent; “Medium”=34–66 percent;

“Low”=0–33 percent.

* The averages reported in this table do not account for the number of gang members reported in each jurisdiction.

Legend:

Motor Vehicle Theft

High (n=263) Medium (n=257) Total/Percentage 

(n=982)

Low (n=462)

40%

33%

26% 27%

35% 35%

28%

33% 34%

2% 2%

6% 4%

33% 33%30%

Drug Sales

Larceny/Theft

High (n=265) Medium (n=257) Total/Percentage 

(n=986)

Low (n=464)

49%

39%

11%

1%

38%

51%

10%

1% 2% 2%

35%

44%

19%

40%

44%

15%

Drug Sales

Burglary/Breaking and Entering

High (n=265) Medium (n=255) Total/Percentage 

(n=982)

Low (n=462)

39%

42%

19%

1%

31%

47%

21%

2%

27%

39%

29%

5%

32%

42%

24%

3%

Drug Sales

Robbery

High (n=262) Medium (n=253) Total/Percentage 

(n=978)

Low (n=463)

30%

37%

2%

17%

41%

35%

7%

10%

25%

50%

9%

15% 17%

32%

41%

31%

Drug Sales

Aggravated Assault

High (n=264) Medium (n=255) Total/Percentage 

(n=985)

Low (n=466)

49%

35%

16%

0%

39%

42%

18%

1%

28%

38%

31%

3%

37%38%

24%

2%

Drug Sales
8

members were involved in aggravated

assault to a “high” degree, 35 percent to

a “medium” degree, and 16 percent to a

“low” degree.

A similar pattern was evident for the

remaining four offenses. As gang member

involvement in drug sales increased, the

degree of gang member involvement in

robbery, larceny/theft, burglary/breaking

and entering, and motor vehicle theft

increased significantly at the high level

of criminal involvement. In jurisdictions

reporting a high level of gang member

involvement in drug sales, an average of

49 percent of all gang members were estimated to be involved to a high degree in

aggravated assault and larceny/theft. In

the same jurisdictions, 40 percent of

gang members were estimated to be involved to a high degree in motor vehicle

theft, 39 percent in burglary/breaking

and entering, and 30 percent in robbery.

Similar crime patterns were observed for

jurisdictions reporting a high degree of

gang control of drug distribution.

The overlapping percentages in figure 1

do not clearly reveal how changes in each

measure—drug trafficking and involvement in other crimes—are affected by

changes in the other. Separate analyses

for gang member drug sales and gang

control of drug distribution (reported in

Howell and Gleason, 1998) showed significant correlations between the two measures of drug trafficking and other crimes.

The correlation was strongest for robbery,

followed by aggravated assault, then other

offenses. Howell and Gleason’s analysis

also showed very high correlations between various crimes other than drug

trafficking. In fact, the strongest correlations were between robbery and aggravated assault, followed by robbery and

motor vehicle theft, then robbery and

either drug sales or drug distribution

(in all jurisdictions that responded to

the drug trafficking questions).20

When gang members are involved in

one form of criminal activity, they are

likely to be involved in other types of

crimes. As Klein (1995) observed, involvement in “cafeteria-style” (widely varied)

crime is typical in youth gangs. Studies of

gang members within large adolescent

samples show that gang members engage

in a wide variety of offenses besides drug

trafficking,21 including drug and alcohol

use, public disorder, property damage,

theft, extortion, robbery, carrying illegal

guns, and many other general acts of delinquency. Fighting with other gangs is

also common. Gang members in an 11-city

survey of middle school students said

that the most characteristic feature of

their gang was fighting with other gangs

(Esbensen, Deschenes, and Winfree, in

press). Multivariate analyses22 of the relationships between gang member involvement in drug trafficking and criminal offenses will be required, because other

variables, such as intergang conflicts,

may be influencing gang involvement in

criminal offenses.

Program Implications

Although gang member involvement in

drug sales is spread across all population

categories, it accounts for a substantial

proportion of the drug sales in less than

one-fourth of all jurisdictions reporting

youth gang problems in the 1996 National

Youth Gang Survey. Youth gang control of

drug distribution affects about one-third

of gang problem jurisdictions. Drug gangs

may be more prevalent in these localities,

which would increase the proportion of

involved gangs. Active control of drug

distribution by youth gangs appears to be

more prevalent in heavily populated jurisdictions in which young adults (age 18

and older) are more prevalent among

youth gang members (see tables 1 and 2).

It appears that a relatively small number of jurisdictions have serious youth

gang drug trafficking problems. Klein’s

(1995) national survey of law enforcement

agencies produced a similar finding. In

Klein’s interviews with gang experts in police departments in 261 “notable gang cities,” only 14 percent reported a major role

of youth gangs in drug distribution, and

distinct drug gangs were reported in 16

percent of the cities (1995, p. 36). In most

of these cities, the drug gangs did not represent the majority of the gangs. Overall,

72 percent of the cities “reported the gangcrack connection to be moderate, weak, or

nonexistent.”

There is some evidence that the most

affected jurisdictions are cities in which

gang problems first emerged in the early

1980’s. Cities with newer youth gang problems are much less likely to have youth

gangs that control drug trafficking enterprises. Each jurisdiction needs to assess

the youth gang problem carefully to determine whether or not drug trafficking is a

major cause for concern. A thorough assessment should consider at least the specific characteristics of the gangs, the sex

and ages of gang members, the crimes

gangs commit and the victims of their

crimes, and the localities or areas they affect. No assumptions should be made about

youth gang problems in a particular community before an assessment is performed.

As a first step, jurisdictions experiencing youth gang problems should attempt

to distinguish between bona fide youth

gangs and drug gangs. In some localities,

the latter appear to account for much of

the drug trafficking that law enforcement

agencies attribute to youth gangs. This

distinction has important implications

for interventions, particularly law enforcement investigation and interdiction

tactics. Drug gangs, also called “crack”

gangs, grew out of the narcotics trade—

not out of youth gangs (Klein, 1995;

Moore, 1990). Klein and Maxson’s (1996)

law enforcement survey in 201 cities

found that “specialty drug gangs” constituted only 9 percent of all gangs. Nevertheless, these drug gangs may be responsible for a significant proportion of drug

sales and violence in some cities. Although the 1996 National Youth Gang

Survey did not ask respondents to report

the existence or number of drug gangs,

their inclusion in gang definitions makes

a significant difference in law enforcement estimates of gang involvement in

drug trafficking. Unfortunately, researchers “do not know enough . . . to attempt

to differentiate between drug gangs and

the broad array of groups that comprise

street gangs” (Klein, 1995, p. 130). However, Klein (table 7) suggests several

common differences between (youth)

street gangs and drug gangs that—as a

starting point—can help jurisdictions

differentiate between the two and develop appropriate responses for both

(see Klein, 1995, p. 132).

Successfully breaking up youth gang

drug operations may require different approaches, depending on the type of gang

20 Analysis of the data using Goodman and Kruskal’s

gamma to measure associations between each of the

two drug trafficking measures and other crimes (Howell

and Gleason, 1998) found that all were statistically significant. The pairs with the strongest association were

gang control of drug distribution and robbery, followed

by gang member drug sales and robbery. The association between aggravated assault and either drug trafficking measure was next in strength.

21 See Thornberry (1998) for a summary of four major

studies.

22 Multivariate techniques of analysis examine which

variables account for most of the variance when other

factors are taken into account.
9

(Howell and Decker, 1999). Because youth

gangs generally are involved only in

street-level drug distribution, the proceeds of which typically are used for personal consumption, providing legitimate

ways of earning money may be an effective intervention strategy. Suppression

approaches (formal and informal social

control procedures) may be more effective with drug gangs (see the Bureau of

Justice Assistance’s 1997 prototype for

police suppression of drug gangs).

Several youth gang programs hold

promise for reducing drug trafficking.

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Community-Wide

Approach to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Program model

(also known as the Spergel model), currently being tested in five demonstration

sites (Bloomington, IN; Mesa and Tucson,

AZ; Riverside, CA; and San Antonio,

TX), appears to be a promising broad

approach to combating a wide range of

gang crimes, including drug trafficking

(for descriptions of these programs, see

Burch and Kane, 1999). Preliminary data

from this initiative suggest a reduction of

drug use and selling among targeted gang

youth. An early pilot of the comprehensive model, Chicago’s Gang Violence

Reduction Program, which targeted two

of the city’s most violent gangs, showed

overall effectiveness, including reduction

of drug selling among program clients

when a combination of sanctions and

coordinated services were delivered to

them (Spergel and Grossman, 1997). The

Tri-Agency Resource Gang Enforcement

Team (TARGET) integrates and coordinates

the work of the Westminster Police Department, the Orange County, CA, District

Attorney, and the Orange County Probation Department in removing gang leadership and the most chronic recidivists

from the community (Capizzi, Cook, and

Schumacher, 1995; Kent et al., in press).

The JUDGE (Jurisdictions United for Drug

Gang Enforcement) program in San Diego,

CA, is an example of multiagency coordination of investigations, prosecutions,

and sanctions of violent members of drugtrafficking gangs (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1997). Another multiagency strategy, Boston’s enforcement, intervention,

and prevention initiative (Kennedy, 1997;

Kennedy et al., 1996), targets the city’s

most dangerous gang and drug offenders

using a variety of enforcement-oriented

strategies.

Programs that provide alternatives

to gang life for active gang members also

hold promise for reducing involvement in

drug sales. Many gang members would

give up drug selling for reasonable wages

(Huff, 1998). Two inner-city gang programs

that provide such job opportunities for

gang members appear particularly promising in this regard: the National Center

for Neighborhood Enterprises (1999)

Violence-Free Zone initiatives, and the

Los Angeles Homeboy Industries and

Jobs for a Future (Gaouette, 1997). Many

other programs that provide alternatives

to gang involvement can also help reduce

gang member drug trafficking, such as

the Boys and Girls Clubs’ Targeted Outreach program (see Howell, in press, for

detailed information on this and other

promising approaches). School-based

antigang curriculums, such as Gang Resistance Education and Training, (G.R.E.A.T.)

appear promising for preventing gang involvement (Esbensen and Osgood, 1999),

but other interventions may be needed to

prevent adolescent involvement in drug

selling. Preventing early initiation into drug

use is a promising avenue, because early

onset of drug use is a major risk factor for

gang membership (Hill et al., 1999), and

drug use is a precursor to drug trafficking

(Van Kammen, Maguin, and Loeber, 1994).

Selected interventions should be community specific and based on thorough assessments of gang crimes. As Block and

Block (1993, p. 9) caution, “A program to

reduce gang involvement in drugs in a community in which gang members are most

concerned with defense of turf has little

chance of success.” The most promising

comprehensive models for dealing with

bona fide youth gangs are built on collaboration among all sectors of the community

and the juvenile justice system (Burch and

Chemers, 1997; Howell, in press).

The criminal activities of youth gangs

have important program and policy implications. Data from the 1996 National Youth

Gang Survey support earlier studies that

show the criminal versatility of youth

gangs (Klein, 1995, p. 68; Miller, 1992;

Thornberry, 1998). Drug trafficking is only

one of many types of crimes committed by

youth gangs. Thus, it is not surprising that

drug crimes are highly correlated with

robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,

larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Although gang member involvement in drug

sales and gang control of drug distribution

were strongly correlated with gang member involvement in all of the other five

measured criminal offenses, the survey

results did not suggest a particular pattern

of criminal activity. The data suggest that

gang drug trafficking may take place concurrently with other criminal activities,

rather than cause other crimes. Further

research on this relationship is needed.

In their review of the gangs, drugs, and

violence connection, Howell and Decker

(1999) concluded that most youth gang

violence is not related to drug trafficking.

Decker and Van Winkle (1994) concluded

that most violent crimes committed by

youth gangs are related to intergang and

interpersonal conflicts. The analyses reported in this Bulletin support Howell and

Decker’s conclusion. Youth gang interventions should be designed to prevent and

reduce all types of criminality—not just

drug crimes.

Table 7: Common Differences Between Street Gangs and Drug Gangs

Street Gangs Drug Gangs

Various (“cafeteria-style”) crimes. Crime focused on drug business.

Larger groups. Smaller groups.

Less cohesive organization. More cohesive organization.

Ill-defined roles for members. Market-defined roles for members.

Code of loyalty. Requirement of loyalty.

Residential territories. Sales market territories.

Members may sell drugs. Members do sell drugs.

Controlled by intergang rivalries. Controlled by competition.

Younger, on average, but wider age range. Older, on average, but narrower

age range.

Source: Adapted from Klein (1995), p. 132.
10

Conclusion

Youth gang involvement in drug sales

and distribution is widespread, cutting

across all demographic sectors, particularly age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, and population categories. However, according to law enforcement

agency responses to the 1998 National

Youth Gang Survey, extensive gang involvement in drug trafficking appears

to be concentrated in a relatively small

number of jurisdictions.

Every jurisdiction experiencing a gang

problem needs to assess its specific problem before deciding on a response.23 A

different community response likely will

be needed for different types of gangs involved in drug trafficking. Adult criminal

organizations that control drug distribution systems and drug gangs are susceptible to suppression strategies (Bureau

of Justice Assistance, 1997). Youth gangs

may be less tractable because they are

embedded in the social and cultural fabric of communities and integrally related

to the adolescent developmental period.

They require a more comprehensive response that combines prevention, intervention, and suppression strategies

(Burch and Chemers, 1997).

For Further Information

For further information, contact:

National Youth Gang Center: Institute

for Intergovernmental Research

P.O. Box 12729

Tallahassee, FL 32317

800–446–0912

850–386–5356 (fax)

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

References

Block, R., and Block, C.R. 1993. Street

Gang Crime in Chicago. Research in Brief.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National

Institute of Justice.

Burch, J.H., and Chemers, B.M. 1997.

A Comprehensive Response to America’s

Youth Gang Problem. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Burch, J., and Kane, C. 1999. Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model.

Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997.

Urban Street Gang Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

Capizzi, M., Cook, J.I., and Schumacher,

M. 1995. The TARGET model: A new approach to the prosecution of gang cases.

The Prosecutor March/April:18–21.

Curry, G.D. 1996. National youth gang

surveys: A review of methods and findings.

Unpublished report prepared for the National Youth Gang Center, Tallahassee, FL.

Curry, G.D., Ball, R.A., and Decker, S.H.

1996. Estimating the national scope of

gang crime from law enforcement data. In

Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R.

Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 21–36.

Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1994.

Slinging dope: The role of gangs and gang

members in drug sales. Justice Quarterly

11(4):583–604.

Esbensen, F., Deschenes, E.P., and

Winfree, L.T. 1999. Differences between

gang girls and gang boys: Results from a

multi-site survey. Youth and Society 31(1):

27–53.

Esbensen, F., and Osgood, D.W. 1999.

Gang Resistance Education and Training

(GREAT): Results from the National Evaluation. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 36(2):194–225.

Gaouette, N. 1997. Hope rises at

Homeboy Bakeries in L.A. Christian Science Monitor (Sept. 15):1.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D.,

and Battin, S.R. 1999. Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development

Project. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency 36(3):300–322.

Howell, J.C. In press. Youth Gang Programs and Strategies. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., and Decker, S.H. 1999. The

Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1998.

Youth gangs, drugs, and crime: Results

from the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Unpublished report. Tallahassee, FL:

National Youth Gang Center.

Huff, C.R. 1989. Gangs and public policy.

Crime and Delinquency 35(4):524–537.

Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal

Behavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth.

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Kennedy, D.M. 1997. Pulling levers:

Chronic offenders, high-crime settings,

and a theory of prevention. Valparaiso

University Law Review 3(2):449–484.

Kennedy, D.M., Piehl, A.M. and Braga,

A.A. 1996. Youth violence in Boston: Gun

markets, serious youth offenders, and a

use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems 59(1):147–196.

Kent, D.R., Donaldson, S.I., Wyrick, P.A.,

and Smith, P.J. In press. Evaluating criminal justice programs designed to reduce

crime by targeting repeat gang offenders.

Evaluation and Program Planning 24.

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street

Gang. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Klein, M.W., and Maxson, C.L. 1996.

Gang structures, crime patterns and police

responses. Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California,

Social Science Research Institute.

Klein, M.W., Maxson, C.L., and Cunningham, L.C. 1991. Crack, street gangs,

and violence. Criminology 29(4):623–650.

Maxson, C.L. 1992. Collecting data from

investigation files: Descriptions of three

Los Angeles gang homicide projects. In

Questions and Answers About Lethal and

Non-Lethal Violence, edited by C.R. Block

and R. Block. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang homicide. In

Studying and Preventing Homicide, edited

by D. Smith and M. Zahn. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage, pp. 197–219.

Miller, W.B. 1992. (Revised from 1982).

Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the

United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

23 For an assessment process that can be adapted for

any size jurisdiction, see National Youth Gang Center,

1999b.
11

Moore, J.W. 1990. Gangs, drugs, and

violence. In Drugs and Violence: Causes,

Correlates, and Consequences, edited by

M. De La Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B.

Gropper. NIDA Research Monograph 103.

Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, National Institutes

of Health, National Institute on Drug

Abuse, pp. 160–176.

Moore, J.P., and Terrett, C. 1998. Highlights of the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. 1999. Violence-Free Zone Initiatives. Washington, DC: National Center for

Neighborhood Enterprise.

National Youth Gang Center. 1999a.

1996 National Youth Gang Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

National Youth Gang Center. 1999b.

Rural gang initiative: A guide to assessing

a community’s youth gang problem.

Unpublished report. Tallahassee, FL:

National Youth Gang Center.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in

gangs and involvement in serious and vioThis Bulletin was prepared under Cooperative Agreement 95–JD–MU–K001 to the Institute

for Intergovernmental Research from the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Acknowledgments

James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an Adjunct Researcher at the National Youth Gang

Center (NYGC), Institute for Intergovernmental Research, Tallahassee, FL. Debra

K. Gleason is a Microsystems Analyst at NYGC.

The authors are grateful to John Moore at NYGC and David Curry at the

University of Missouri-St. Louis, who reviewed earlier drafts and made very

helpful suggestions for improvements to this Bulletin.

lent offending. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful

Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and

D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

pp. 147–166.

Van Kammen, W., Maguin, E., and Loeber,

R. 1994. Initiation of drug selling and its relationship with illicit drug use and serious

delinquency in adolescent boys. In CrossNational Longitudinal Research on Human

Development and Criminal Behavior, edited

by E.G.M. Weitekamp and H.J. Kerner. Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 229–241.

Related Reading

In addition to this Bulletin, the following OJJDP publications related to

youth gangs are available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC):

A Comprehensive Response to

America’s Youth Gang Problem (March

1997) FS 9640

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior (June 1997) NCJ 165154

Youth Gangs (December 1997)

FS 9772

Youth Gangs: An Overview (August

1998) NCJ 167249

Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers,

and Delinquent Behavior (October 1998)

NCJ 171119

Gang Members on the Move (October

1998) NCJ 171153

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence

Connection (January 1999) NCJ 174288

Highlights of the 1997 National Youth

Gang Survey (March 1999) FS 9997

1996 National Youth Gang Survey

(July 1999) NCJ 173964

Implementing the OJJDP Comprehensive Gang Model (July 1999) FS 99112

1997 National Youth Gang Survey

(in press)

Highlights of the 1998 National Youth

Gang Survey (in press)

To order the publications listed

above, contact JJC and request the

appropriate NCJ or FS numbers.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-mail: puborder@ncjrs.org

Internet: www.ncjrs.org
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 178282

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300